Pet Custody Laws in India: How Indian Law Decides Ownership After Separation

Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Jai Anant Dehadrai as TMC MP Challenges Denial of Interim Custody of Pet Rottweiler

A high-profile legal dispute over the custody of a pet Rottweiler named Henry has brought attention to a grey area in Indian law: who keeps a pet when a couple separates?

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday (February 19, 2026), issued notice to advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, former partner of Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra, after Moitra challenged a lower court order that denied her interim shared custody of Henry.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, hearing the matter, sought Dehadrai’s response. The case is scheduled for hearing on April 29.

Henry, approximately five-and-a-half years old, is currently with Dehadrai.

What Is the Mahua Moitra–Henry Custody Case About?

The dispute stems from a November 10, 2025 Saket court order, which dismissed Moitra’s plea seeking:

• Shared custody of Henry

• Interim custody of the dog for 10 days every month

The district court held that Moitra did not establish a prima facie case for interim shared custody.

The original lawsuit filed by Moitra sought specific performance of an oral agreement between her and Dehadrai for shared custody of the dog.

Delhi High Court Proceedings: What Happened?

During the hearing, Moitra’s counsel, senior advocate Avi Singh, requested an earlier date of hearing, arguing that:

“The shelf life of this pet is only a few more years.”

Initially, the matter was being posted for May, but it was subsequently listed for April 29.

Dehadrai appeared in person and argued that the petition should be dismissed at the threshold (in limine).

Key Legal Arguments Presented by Mahua Moitra

In her appeal before the High Court, Moitra argued:

• Henry was given to her as her pet.

• Henry primarily resided at her residence.

• The dog resided with Dehadrai only when she travelled to her constituency in West Bengal for official duties.

• She was a “co-parent” of Henry.

• The local court failed to consider that the dog usually lived with her.

• The November 2025 order deprived her of the love and affection of a pet she raised for two years.

Her plea also states:

“Henry primarily resided at the appellant’s residence from where he was admittedly taken by the respondent when he was trespassing.”

Additionally, she submitted that:

• On August 9, 2023, Henry’s registration was formally transferred in her name.

• All veterinary records reflect her as the owner and primary caregiver.

• Email exchanges between the parties discussing shared custody constitute a valid contract even without a formal written agreement.

The Ownership Question: Who Purchased Henry?

The Saket court ruled that:

• The matter hinged on ownership.

• Dehadrai had purchased the dog in 2021.

• Moitra had not claimed to have paid for the dog — which weighed against her claim for interim relief.

Before the High Court, Moitra contended that the dog was paid for by Dehadrai on her behalf.

Indian Law on Pet Custody: Pets as Property, Not Children

The central hurdle in such cases is that Indian law does not recognize pets as sentient beings with custodial rights.

According to Advocate-on-Record Anshul Gupta:

“In India, there is no definitive law dealing with pet custody. Pets are considered property in Indian law for all practical purposes.”

Under current statutes:

• Pets are treated as movable property.

• There is no concept of a “pet parent.”

• Pets are not recognized as “wards” or “children.”

Therefore, disputes are typically decided based on:

• Proof of purchase

• Registration ownership

• Financial responsibility

• Who pays veterinary expenses

• Who primarily cares for the pet

The “Best Interest” Standard: A Growing Shift?

Although Indian courts traditionally follow the property model, some legal experts argue that a “best interest” standard — typically used in child custody cases — is slowly emerging in pet custody disputes.

Prominent family lawyer Malavika Rajkotia cited a Mumbai divorce case (2020), where:

• The former husband received dominant custody.

• The former wife retained custody for one month, three times a year.

• The settlement required both parties to inform each other before taking the dogs on vacation.

Such agreements mirror child custody arrangements.

Advocate Jasmine Damkewala noted that divorce settlements increasingly include:

• Shared pet custody clauses

• Maintenance expenses

• Vaccination costs

• Trainer fees

• Medical care provisions

When Shared Custody Fails

Legal experts suggest that when amicable settlements fail, the dispute often reflects deeper interpersonal conflict.

Rajkotia observed:

“When it doesn’t work, these cases become a battle of ownership.”

She further noted that inability to reach shared custody suggests the pet may be:

“A symbol of something else altogether.”

Supreme Court’s 2014 Judgment: A Potential Legal Basis?

Moitra cited the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in:

Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja

In that case, the Supreme Court recognized the dignity of animals.

She argued that pets should not be treated as mere movable property like furniture, and the court should exercise equitable jurisdiction to protect the pet’s welfare.

However, Indian statutes have not yet formally recognized custodial rights over pets.

Earlier Legal Developments in the Case

• In September 2025, the Delhi High Court issued notice to Moitra on an appeal filed by Dehadrai.

• Justice Manoj Jain asked her to file a response.

• Senior advocate Sanjoy Ghosh appeared for Dehadrai.

• The case remains pending before the Saket court.

The Core Legal Question: Ownership vs Caregiving

Under current Indian law, courts consider:

• Who purchased the pet

• Who holds the adoption papers

• Who pays expenses

• Who maintains veterinary records

In cases involving unmarried couples, courts primarily focus on ownership and financial responsibility.

Caregiving, emotional bonds, or co-parenting claims carry limited weight unless supported by documentary evidence.

Why the Case Matters

The Moitra–Dehadrai dispute highlights a significant legal gap:

• India lacks specific legislation governing pet custody.

• Pets are treated as property rather than dependents.

• There is no statutory recognition of shared custody or pet parenting rights.

As pet ownership rises in urban India, courts may increasingly face such disputes.

What Happens Next?

The Delhi High Court will hear the matter on April 29, 2026.

The outcome could:

• Clarify how courts balance ownership and caregiving.

• Influence future pet custody disputes.

• Potentially encourage legislative debate on animal custodial rights.

For now, under Indian law, ownership documentation remains decisive.

A Legal Grey Area in Indian Family Law

Mahua Moitra’s legal battle over Henry underscores the tension between:

• Emotional attachment

• Caregiving roles

• Legal ownership

While courts are beginning to consider welfare aspects in mediated settlements, Indian law continues to treat pets as property.

Unless statutory reform addresses pet custody explicitly, such disputes will likely remain ownership battles rather than custodial determinations.

Read Full Day Compilation